Christiern

Aggie87, I now understand why you accept the term, "cover" as not being meaningless. Your analogies are rather fanciful, I think.

So, all too many people will describe a somewhat accomplished artist who has passed his or her 50th birthday as a "legend." That, to me, is as ludicrous as it is to refer to any non-premiere recording of a tune as a "cover." When a term is misused often enough, some (those who give it no real thought) will simply accept it--even if it does not reflect reason. Eventually, the term loses its meaning and becomes a "whatever" kind of phrase. Being under 42 is no excuse for using sloppy language, IMO.

If, as Dan suggests, any version of a tune made subsequent to the original version is a "cover," then the term has no meaning whatsoever and our catalogs become coverlogs. I think a "cover"--to earn that designation--should be a recording of a popular selection that is made while that selection is current. BTW It was probably Dankworth's recording of Galt MacDermott's "African Waltz" that reached Bill Grauer's ears (via Canada, as I recall) in February of 1961 and set in motion a scramble to rush out a new version (cover, if you will) by Cannonball. I was at Riverside then and remember the rush to get this done and into the promotional machine. Ernie Wilkins was called in to write a quick arrangement and a hastily assembled big band was ushered into the Plaza Sound Studio. It was a midnight oil kind of thing and it paid off.

This will be the Golden Gate Bridge of reissues--when they reach the final volume (or, perhaps, before), it will be time to start a reissue of this reissue in the reproductive audio format of the day.

In another thread, Dan Gould's starting post contained the following: Which prompted me to pose a question that has lingered in my little mind ever since I started reading jazz bulletin boards: How do you define a "cover" as opposed to just another rendition of tune that someone else already recorded? Is Coleman Hawkins' "Body and Soul" a "cover"? Are there tons of "St. Louis Blues" covers? When the term was first applied to recordings, I believe it described recordings by white artists who performed a tune already waxed by a black artist whose records would not have been played on most radio stations. Presley's "Hound Dog" was a cover of Big Mama Thornton's original recording, for example. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the term is now applied far too generally. My question was ignored and I admit that it was off topic (sorry Dan), so here it is again, in it's very own thread. Consider it re-posed.

Field Marshall Montgomery became General Montgomery on last night's episode. From what I have seen thus far, this series cannot hold a candle to "The World at War." Interesting clips and recollections, but the script meanders and often seems rather fanciful.

Perhaps also of passing interest, the Riverside album has a vocal ("Oh, Daddy") by Elaine McFarland, then a very nervous young beginner who soon would be recording hits with her pop group, Spanky and Our Gang.

Unfortunately, all your images have vanished, but here's one I found in my 7" collection this morning...

You left out the GI gumbo.

Quote of the Day?

The problem is that the cars in the park footage came first and the story was, indeed, invented out of thin air. Agreed, an honest documentarian does not invent stories to justify the use of a clip or still, but the Burns people do--and that was my point. I rarely agree with "clementine," but he (she?--which is it?) is right on the money in his assessment of Burns. The crap he puts out has wide appeal, because he throws in a lot of nostalgia and sentimentality. The corporate types who approve the funding cannot see beyond that--integrity? honesty? what the hell is that? I also agree that Burns' brother puts out a better product, as it were.

I may be saving certain inside knowledge for my book.

I suspect that he already sold the collection. Guess the obit will contain that information.

I just heard that Bob Altschuler has passed away--haven't found an obit, yet. I knew Bob fairly well when I was doing work for Columbia and CBS/Sony, but I must be frank and say that he was not someone I wished to know outside of the business. Bob may well have had one of the largest private collections of 78 rpm jazz extant.

Accuracy in reporting is not something Burns demands--in fact, he cares little for facts or correct identification. When his people asked me for a photo that Burns was eager to use, because it was "a great shot of Louis [Armstrong]." I told them that it wasn't Louis at all. They used it anyway and moved the camera past the other people in the shot, to a closeup of "Louis." The photo was actually a candid shot from Lil Armstrong's wedding to her first husband--Louis hadn't even arrived in Chicago. The Burns people had a film clip of 1920s cars driving through Central Park--it bore no relationship to the story at hand, but he wanted to use it, so he invented a little story about Fletcher Henderson and Will Marion Cook liking to discuss arrangements while riding through Central Park in a taxi.

Norah's song was wedged into the film and not at all prepossessing. I remember the war years well, having spent almost 3 of them in New York, the rest in occupied Iceland, and 1 1/2 month on the Atlantic Ocean. One problem with Burns' films is that he allows whatever visual material he can find to dictate the direction, and when he allows unidentified clips to trigger his fantasy, he simply makes up things to fit them in. He did this before and he seems to be doing it again.

Fromn what I have seen, so far, Wynton's music is both intrusive and off the mark. Let's face it, WWII had its own score and nothing can be more effective than the music of the period. IMO, the only thing worth watching in Burns' so-called documentaries is the footage--with all the money that's wasted on his productions, great, often rare clips are the sole redeeming value. It's just a shame that these kinds of well-funded, generously timed projects are not in the hands of honest film makers.

Of course!

Since most photos posted earlier have disappeared, we should all make ourselves reappear. Here's one taken a year ago, at my 75th birthday. I'll leave it to you to single me out.

"Holocaust" (as in "the holocaust") is definitely an unfortunate term; applied years later to Hitler's atrocities, it has always struck me as a PR term. Sad to say, we have seen many holocausts throughout history, including the present time--no single segment of the population can lay exclusive claim to it. Getting back to the suggestion that "Schindler's List" should be shown to children, I think the grim reality of actual photos and footage is far more effective than any Hollywood film, even one based on fact.

Why would the kids have to be Jewish? All kids should be taught the lesson. People often forget that Hitler's atrocities were not limited to any one segment of humanity.

I don't know what "attitude" you refer to here, or whether I am part of that. However, I understand where you are coming from with this thread, and think you may have misinterpreted some of the responses. That's it from me regarding that.

I think that's part of the point though. There are new generations that didn't experience what you did, or saw what you've seen. It's not readily available for most of the world's population. If this helps younger people to begin to understand the atrocities that the Nazis perpetrated on fellow humans, it's beneficial, IMO. Agreed, I guess my point is that this "new" material is not as shocking as much of what preceded it. If the purpose of the post was to remind the old and educate the young, more effective documentation has been available for over 6 decades. Let's face it, many of these newly discovered photos are pretty uneffective when taken out of context--an up-turned blueberry bowl is not even remotely as horrifying as piles of shoes, life-starved faces, or a glimpse of Ilse's lamp shades. It's all disturbing beyond measure and, Ubu, you shouldn't take anything I say here personally. Thanks for starting this thread, which no one really regards as useless.

I have to agree with Alexander. These pictures are very disturbing, but we have seen this sort of thing before, and much worse. I still recall vividly the film footage my grandfather took me to see in 1946, when I was 15. It was in Denmark and the war years were still highly focused in the minds of people. I had spent the war years in Iceland and the U.S., so my grandfather wanted me to see how brutal the Germans had been. The films left an indelible mark on me and I really don't think I will ever see anything that is more horrifying, so, to me, these pictures are but a grim reminder. Sure, there are equally horrifying human atrocities being performed today, but there is no yardstick by which such acts can be measured--there is a level above which degrees of inhumanity cannot rise. The mentality that sowed the acts at Auschwitz is the same one we see at work in Darfur and saw at Abu Ghraib and in the smiling faces of American lynching celebrants. Don't mean to, in any way, minimize the barbarity documented by the posted photos, just had to point out that they are almost an after-shock at this point--at least to those of us who are old enough to be experiencing dèjá vu.

I stopped looking forward to Ken Burns "documentaries" a long time ago. If he gets this one right, I'll be the first to say so, but it sure does not appear to be the case. Wynton doing the music is not good news--will we also hear Crouch talk about his non-existent WWII experiences?